Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - Homeland Security

S. HRG.
107918
HOMELAND SECURITY
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
JULY 17, 2002
Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

86215 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:44 May 05, 2003 Jkt 086215 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 86215.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MAX BAUCUS, Montana MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
ZELL MILLER, Georgia PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BEN NELSON, Nebraska WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, Minnesota MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho
MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director/Chief Counsel

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel for the Minority
ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk
KEITH LUSE, Staff Director for the Minority
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
HEARING(S):
Homeland Security .................................................................................................. 01
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 01
WITNESSES
Ridge, Hon. Tom, Director, Offic of Homeland Security, Washington, DC ......... 02
Torres, Hon. Alfonso, Associate Dean, Veterinary Public Policy, and Director,
New York State Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York ........................... 21
Veneman, Hon. Ann M., Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX
PREPARED STATEMENTS:
Lugar, Hon. Richard ......................................................................................... 30
Ridge, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................... 31
Torres, Alfonso .................................................................................................. 40
Veneman, Hon. Ann M. .................................................................................... 37
DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
Allard, Hon. Wayne .......................................................................................... 57
American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA) and Society of
American Florists (SAF) ............................................................................... 63
Baucus, Hon. Max ............................................................................................ 50
Leahy, Hon. Patrick ......................................................................................... 59
Letter from Wayne Pacelle and Mimi Brody .................................................. 62
Letter to Secretary Ann M. Veneman from Senator Richard Lugar ............ 61
Nelson, Hon. Ben .............................................................................................. 56
Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 51
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
From Senator Tom Harkin to Governor Tom Ridge (No answers were
provided) ........................................................................................................ 79
From Senator Tom Harkin to Secretary Ann M.Veneman (No answers
were provided) ............................................................................................... 78
(III)
HOMELAND SECURITY
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,
ON
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in room
SD106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, chair-
man of the committee, presiding.
Present or submitting a statement: Senators Harkin, Lincoln,
Miller, Nelson, Dayton, Lugar, Roberts, Thomas, Allard, Hutch-
inson, and Crapo.
STATEMENT OF TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry will come to order for this hearing on homeland security.
The President has stated and we all agree that we have to be
ready to respond to protect American interests against the new and
very dangerous threat of terrorism. Protecting our borders and
keeping our residents safe from harm is our Governments highest
priority and represents an increasingly big challenge to all of us.
President Bushs proposal for a new Department of Homeland Se-
curity included a call for the transfer of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, APHIS, but recently the administration
has indicated it is agreeable to some of the provisions that they
worked out with the House in terms of transferring some of APHIS
functions regarding Plum Island and some border security.
I wont go into all the details on that except to say that, at least
from this chairmans standpoint, we want to do everything we can
to make sure that the new Office of Homeland Security is up and
running as soon as possible, that it functions as it is supposed to
function, and that we transfer or get to this new Department of
Homeland Security what is necessary to do their job, but in the
most efficient manner, so that we can still have an Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service that protects the health and well-
being of our people in this country but also that the new Homeland
Security Office can do its job in protecting our borders. That is the
standpoint from which I approach this, and what works the best
and what works more efficiently, that is what we want to do.
In the interest of time, since we have a 2:30 vote, I will dispense
with reading any more of my statement. If the Senators dont mind,
if we could go right to Governor Ridge right away, I would cer-
tainly appreciate it. We are honored indeed
(1)
2
Senator ROBERTS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes?
Senator ROBERTS. I have a statement I would like to insert in the
record at this point on behalf of Senator Lugar.
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. I am sorry. I apologize. Senator
Lugar is unavoidably detained and will not be able to join us.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar can be found in the
appendix on page 30.]
The CHAIRMAN. Any other Senators that have a statement they
want to put in the record, it will be made part of the record in its
entirety right now.
Governor Ridge, we welcome you here. We thank you for the
great job you are doing. As a former colleague of ours, we are proud
of what you are doing down there, and we look forward to working
with you to make this transition as smooth and as seamless as pos-
sible. Please, welcome to the committee, and your statement will be
made a part of the record in its entirety. Proceed as you so desire.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RIDGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. RIDGE. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is a pleasure to
accept your invitation to spend this afternoon with you, at least
part of the afternoon, and in the interest of getting into the kind
of conversation and dialog that the committee was interested in
when you extended the invitation in the first place, I would ask ob-
viously unanimous consent that my full statement be included as
part of the record. I had reduced it considerably, but we are on a
short clock, and we ought to get into the conversation.
You understand that the President appreciates the bipartisan
support that has been evidenced so far in both chambers as we
work together to achieve a mutual goal, and that is the creation
of a Department of Homeland Security. You are very familiar with
the units and the basic desire to create a department whose pri-
mary focus, primary mission is the security of this country. You un-
derstand that I am testifying today pursuant to an Executive order
creating a transitional planning office for the new department, and
I testify today as the Director of that planning office. Since all of
the members are conversant with the provisions of the Presidents
proposal and may or may not have had the opportunity to review
the remarks, in the interest of conserving some time and getting
into the conversation that we both think is very important to ad-
vancing our mutual effort to get this department set up, I conclude
my remarks, and lets have at it.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor Ridge, and I
will limit myself to 3 minutes, and then I will try to give 3 minutes
back and forth to all the Senators who are here. Whoever is run-
ning this clock, if you would put it on 3 minutes for me.
Again, Governor, essentially the proposal we have before us
would transfer all of APHIS front-line employees charged with re-
sponding to agricultural health concerns, about 3,200 of them. To
cover its domestic agricultural health responsibilities, APHIS then
would have to borrow some of these employees back. USDA and the
White House indicate that at any one time APHIS would have to
3
borrow maybe 15 to 20 percent of those 3,200 former employees to

meet domestic agricultural health responsibilities.
Furthermore, the proposal states that APHIS will be responsible
for training these 3,200 employees sent to the new department and
will set forth the policy regarding what they are supposed to look
for and how they do their inspections. Again, I dont knowwhat
we want tois this the most efficient management structure that
we can come up with in terms of what your responsibilities are and
what our responsibilities are in terms of just domestic Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service? As I said one time to one of your
staff, I said surely you dont want to get into things dealing with
corn bores and boll weevils and glassy wing sharpshooters and
things like that, plus meat inspection and all that kind of endeav-
or. We have to determine what is the best management structure
for you to be able to get these people when you need them and for
us to continue the ongoing job of regular Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. RIDGE. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. As you know, the
Presidents original proposal called for the complete integration of
APHIS into the new Department of Homeland Security, and work-
ing with Members of Congress and looking for means to refine the
allocation of those resources, particularly those invaluable people
in a way that enhanced our ability to secure the borders and pre-
vent an agroterrorism event by detection at the borders, we have
kind of refined that initial proposal to just include the specialized
border inspection and enforcement services. It seems to me that in
the event that there is a need for the Department of Agriculture
to use some of these men and women in another capacity, that
could be worked out in a memorandum of understanding between
the two agencies.
Originally, as you are well aware, the grafting of the entire de-
partment would have been about 8,000 people, in recognition that
there was awe thought there was a clear line and a very good
integration at the border for security and detection purposes to just
include the specialized inspection group. Hopefully the concerns
that you have addressed regarding these individuals being tasked
to do other things just could be worked out with an executive
memorandum between the two Secretaries.
The CHAIRMAN. I hope so. Thank you very much, Governor.
In order of people who arrived, I would go down the list to Sen-
ators Roberts, Nelson, Hutchinson, Thomas, Allard, Miller. Senator
Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tom, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for being in
a listening mode, more especially in regards to APHIS, the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, and the obvious need to tighten up our border
security.
Senator Allard, who is probably the pre-eminent expert with ex-
pertise with his background in veterinary medicine, and I have a
bill that pretty well mirrors what the House has suggested in re-
gards to the division of labor and who we put on the boilers from
APHIS and who we keep in APHIS and the function of that agency.
It is my understanding that all these functions that the chairman
has mentioned, that the House bill has been agreed to by you, and
4
since our bill pretty much mirrors, is almost the same, as a matter
of fact, and we plan to introduce that on Monday, would you be in
favor of that bill? Have you agreed pretty much to the House pro-
posal?
Mr. RIDGE. The answer, Senator, is yes. We think it gives us the
refinement and better management that the chairman and you
were concerned about. Yes, the administration would support that
refinement of its proposal.
Senator ROBERTS. Assume we have a foot-and-mouthwell,
thank you for that answer, No. 1. Assume we have a foot-and-
mouth outbreak that we eventually determine is a result of an in-
tentional introduction in the United States. At the point that deter-
mination is made, who would be in charge of handling the situa-
tion, tracking down those who are responsible, and the consequence
management? We hope, of course, to detect, to prevent, to deter,
but in case we got into consequence management, would that be
the USDA or the Department of Homeland Security? I am assum-
ing the FBI would be in charge, too, as well, not to mention prob-
ably the National Guard under the circumstances. Have you really
determined that kind of a situation to the degree that you can an-
swer that kind of a question?
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, we have. In the Presidents national strat-
egy, it talks about the elimination of the pre-existing division of
labor at a time a terrorist incident occurs. You and I are now talk-
ing about an agroterrorist incident, bioterrorist incident perhaps.
There is a distinction between crisis management and consequence
management, and we think it was more rhetorical than it was
practical. In the event of a terrorist incident of any nature, the De-
partment of Homeland Security would have the coordinating role,
but then, again, the FBI would be the leading law enforcement
agency. The Department of Agriculture and the other relevantin
dealing with agriculture may head up the scientific and agricul-
tural portion of that. The Department of Homeland Security would
have the overall coordinating mission at the time an event occurred
like that and was identified as a terrorism event.
Senator ROBERTS. Are you anticipating in the near future, say
this spring, some exercise with some of our land grant schools to
work through that kind of a scenario?
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, we believe that one of the basic responsibil-
ities of the new department and one of the real opportunities to get
communities prepared, which in itself may end up preventing at-
tacks, is expending resources and working with State and locals on
this very kind of exercise that you are talking about. We need to
do that in the urban and suburban community, but we need to do
it in the rural America as well. We view agriculture as a critical
part of our economic infrastructure, one-sixth of our gross domestic
product. An agroterrorism event would have enormous economic
implications, let alone the potential of loss of life. Engaging the ag-
ricultural community in these kind of exercises would be very
much a part of what the new agency would intend on doing.
Senator ROBERTS. My time is up, and I thank you for yours.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Senator Nelson.
5
Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, it

is great to have you here today and to get a chance to see you
again.
You have already pretty well made it clear that balancing effi-
ciency, food safety, and food security is going to be a challenge that
must be undertaken. I guess one of my first questions is: Can both
food safety and food security be accomplished with APHIS? In
other words, there is a major difference between what APHIS does
today just on the food safety side that when you add food security,
recognizing that it may be subject to a terrorist act, that this is
do you think, first of all, it can be a challenge?
Second, in that regard, should we be looking at other facilities
such as the NIH and the CDC being transferred as well? As Dr.
Torres hasat least it is rumored that he has suggested that.
Mr. RIDGE. Well, Senator, it is clear that there are synergies in
science that relate to both food security and food safety. As a mat-
ter of fact, the science relative to food security is probably derived
from much of the work that has been done by the Department of
Agriculture and others
Senator NELSON. It isnt necessarily a duplication of efforts?
Mr. RIDGE. I dont think so. When it comes to security and/or
safety, a little redundancy is probably not a bad thing to have as
it affects one-sixth of your gross domestic product, anyhow. When
it comes to the border where we try to push the perimeter out and
try to prevent these pathogens, this intentionally contaminated
food or plant life from coming into the United States, we felt that
the refinement of the APHIS provision got us to where we need to
be. Clearly there will continue to be great collaboration and co-
operation between the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Agriculture and the other agencies that deal with
food safety issues as well.
Senator NELSON. Do you think then, though, that it might be
synergy that would be involved with NIH and CDC?
Mr. RIDGE. It is invariable when the scientists get together to
deal with the pathogens that could affect humans, affect animals,
and affect plant life. I suspect there is probably some synergies
there that exist today, and nothing we would do within the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security would in any way inhibit further col-
laboration. We want these resources to be focused, depending on
how we perceive a particular threat. If there is a threat of a par-
ticular kind of agroterrorism incident, we may need to ramp up the
work that is being done not through just the agencies that the De-
partment of Agriculture normally works through, but the CDC and
NIH as well.
It remains to be seen, but we have to be as flexible and as nim-
ble and as aggressive as our enemies might be, which means we
may have to direct certain kinds of research being done as quickly
as possible.
Senator NELSON. Thank you, Governor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Next, Senator Hutchinson.
Senator HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor
Ridge, thank you for your appearance. You are making a lot of ap-
6
pearances on the Hill these days, and we thank you for your pa-
tience in this huge task that is ahead of us. I commend you again
for your leadership and your service to our country.
I was talking with somebody this week who was involved in the
creation of the Department of Energy back in the 1970s, and the
complexity of what we are involved in is far greater than even the
Department of Energy or the Department of Education or the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs, all of which had complexities but
nothing like what we are facing here, the number of agencies in-
volved and the number of departments that are affected.
Let me, first of all, say thank you for your comments on APHIS,
and I concur with what my colleagues have said about the impor-
tance of taking a reasonable approach, and the House has done
that, and I appreciate your response to Senator Roberts question
in particular.
On the broader issue of creating this new department and the
number of agencies involved and the complexity, do you feel that
you have the kind of flexibility that you need to accomplish the
goals? Are there statutory needs or changes that need to be made
to ensure that the new department accomplishes the goals that
have been laid out for it? Do you have that kind of flexibility?
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, we are asking the Congress of the United
States to give the new management team of this department flexi-
bility to deal with personnel, flexibility to deal with the organiza-
tion, and flexibility to deal with the transfer and reprogramming
of funds. It is absolutely critical, as we set up this very large and
very complicated agency, that the ability to attract and retain peo-
ple and giving the Secretary and his team discretion above and be-
yond what might exist under Title 5 or civil service is absolutely
essential.
The President has made it very clear. Historical, traditional, all
Title 5 protections will continue to exist in this department: whis-
tleblower protection, civil rights protection, veterans preference
protection. These men and women transfer over with collective bar-
gaining rights, with their pay and their benefits. We do need to
give the new management team some flexibility to move some peo-
ple around, to reorganize.
Clearly, given the nature of the mission of this agency, if there
are savings to be realized by the reorganizationand we see imme-
diately in the first couple of years, depending on how we construct
the information technology piece and how we build the techno-
logical architecture, we can probably save some money. It is the
hope of the President and the desire and the request before Con-
gress that if you save certain dollars in one area of homeland secu-
rity, you have the flexibility to apply them someplace else for
homeland security. On that note, it is the request of the Presi-
dentI know it is very controversial. It is very contentious. I hope
everybody takes a good, honest, solid look at this. The ability for
this Secretary to transfer some funds on an annual basis, we have
requested up to 5 percent, but to vest the discretion of that piece
of the budget to the Secretary and his management team in order
to react and respond to a threat, react and respond to a need, react
and respond to a priority, we think is critical to maximize the effec-
tiveness of this organization.
7
We have requested congressional support of the management

flexibility that is provided in the Presidents proposal and hope we
can secure some bipartisan support for it.
Senator HUTCHINSON. Well, Governor, I know it is controversial,
but I certainly hope given the implications for the health and safe-
ty of the American people and the security of the homeland that
you will be given that. That is a reasonable request, and I hope we
will comply with it.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Thomas.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Governor.
The comments that have been made are pretty much the com-
ments that I guess I would have. In Wyoming, our producers rely
on APHIS primarily for two things: one is predator control and the
other is disease monitoring, brucellosis and scrapie, whatever. We
hope that core can continue to do what it has been doing, and cer-
tainly we dont deny that some parts should be transferred and we
hope to do that. I dont think the whole thing should be trans-
ferred, and you have indicated that you do not either. I hope your
department can be kept as small and simple as possible to get your
job done.
What about Plum Island? Is that something that will be part of
your activities?
Mr. RIDGE. Well, we have asked for it in the Presidents initia-
tive, Senator. It is more than a symbolic profiling, raising the visi-
bility of potential agroterrorism activity. Plum Island does a great
deal of detection research in the area of agriculture, and having
that capacity within the Department of Homeland Security and ul-
timately sharing the resource, however, with the Department of
Agriculture is ultimately how it is going to work out. Connecting
the capacity at Plum Island to the security mission of the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security is something we felt was consistent
with the mission of the new agency.
Senator THOMAS. We appreciate your efforts and appreciate your
flexibility. I hope we can be a little flexible as well.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
As was said, I am sure this committee will look for a lot of guid-
ance on a lot of these issues from Senator Allard, who is a veteri-
narian. Senator Allard.
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the op-
portunity to serve on this committee and work with you and Sen-
ator Roberts. I know that you in your own right are very knowl-
edgeable about a lot of veterinary issues. You have a vet school in
your home State. We have talked about the importance of some of
these issues.
Mr. RIDGE. The University of Pennsylvania has a pretty good
one, too.
Senator ALLARD. They do. You are absolutely right.
Mr. RIDGE. A plug in for the home team.
Senator ALLARD. The three top vet schools.
The CHAIRMAN. I want you to know that my niece just graduated
from vet med school at Pennsylvania.
8
Senator ALLARD. I am sorry. Maybe five or six, if we keep looking

at all the members on the committee.
I just wanted to raise one question as far as Plum Island. As
most members of the committee know, and you probably know, too,
we deal with a lot of diseases on Plum Islandit is Federal re-
searchthat dont occur in the United States. We need to under-
stand those diseases, and lots of times we say that those diseases
do not occur on the mainland of the United States, ignoring the
fact that we have Plum Island off to the side, so technically that
is correct. The water barriers and whatnot provide some security,
but what are your thoughts about enhancing security? It is very
important because of the vital type of research that is conducted
there and the potential of some of those diseases being introduced
inadvertently, whether by birds or whatever, onto the mainland.
Are you thinking about beefing up security there? Or, do you think
it is pretty adequate right now?
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I am ill-equipped to make an assessment as
to the security at Plum Island today. I know that they havethe
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and those members of the Cabinet have all looked at their
own infrastructure subsequent to, even some of them before 9/11,
to determine whether or not it was vulnerable to any kind of ter-
rorist attack in and of itself and have begun to enhance security.
I would think that one of the most important initial missions for
the new Secretary of the new Department would be, as he or she
goes about the business of aggregating all these resources to pro-
tect the homeland, is they make very sure that these facilities
themselves have enhanced protection to maximize their effective-
ness and use for this country.
Senator ALLARD. A lot of us that have vet schools in our home
States, understand that national support from Plum Island is im-
portant, as well as the national lab that we have in Iowa. A lot of
the vet schools send specimens to Iowa, and they rely on a lot of
research there to keep their students and everybody appraised of
the latest technology as far as some of these diseases that dont
occur in this country. We are in an environment now where our
world is very small and we are getting more transportation of ani-
mals, such as birds and fish, which we have never had in the past.
These functions remain extremely important, and I thank you for
your interest in the Roberts amendment, which I worked with Sen-
ator Roberts on. I appreciate your working with us on that.
Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
Senator Miller.
Senator MILLER. Governor Ridge, it is good to see you again.
Mr. RIDGE. Good to see. Thank you.
Senator MILLER. Thank you for the job you are doing. Our
thoughts have been with you.
I want you to know that I support the administrations goal of
creating a Homeland Security Department. I want you to know
that I want to give that agency all the tools necessary to protect
the citizens of this country. I would like to associate myself with
the remarks that some of the Senators have already made, Senator
Roberts about APHIS and what the House did, and something
9
similar would certainly be acceptable to this Senator. It is a com-

mon-sense approach.
I also would do what my other colleagues have done, and that
is, remind you that there are a lot of land grant universities rep-
resented on this committee, including the University of Georgia
that has excelled in poultry research and food quality. I know that
you will be looking toward those universities and realize what they
can mean in supporting your department. I wish you well.
Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, Senator. One of the units within the new
department will be a science and technology unit, and it may not
be as aptly named or might not strike you asthe way the phrase
is or the terminology we use is the WMD Countermeasures. Clear-
ly, it is a science and technology research and development unit
that the President wants available to this country through the new
department. As we go to enhance our research as it affects security
issues affecting citizens, affecting agriculture, affecting whatever in
this country, the President feels very strongly that we ought to look
to existing laboratory capacity and the scientists that exist without
trying to create our own laboratories or develop our own scientific
base. As you pointed out, we have some fabulous institutions in
this country with great scientists, great researchers, and we ought
to take advantage of them.
Senator MILLER. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Miller.
Senator Lincoln.
Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Governor Ridge. We are glad to have you here.
Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, Senator.
Senator LINCOLN. I am certainly looking forward to the work
that we can achieve together.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and
to all of the other guests that will be testifying today, we appre-
ciate the input that everybody has.
I wanted to add just a few brief remarks to what has already
been said by several of my colleagues. I, too, think that the Presi-
dent was wise to coordinate the many border security and protec-
tion functions of the Federal Government into one new department.
Of course, the integration of so many of these Federal agencies
from so many different parts of Government will not be a simple
affair. We do want to be able to work with you providing that kind
of flexibility that you need to be able to accomplish that.
Yesterday in the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus held a
hearing to look into the Presidents proposal to reorganize the func-
tions of the U.S. Customs Service into the new Department of
Homeland Security. At that hearing, both Chairman Baucus and
myself expressed our reservations about folding all of the functions
of the Customs Service into the new department. It makes the
most sense to preserve some of the normal day-to-day commercial
operations of the Customs Service separate and distinct from the
border enforcement operations. Both kind of operations are clearly
very, very important to all of which occurs in this country, and
many here have expressed that the same logic applies to our con-
sideration of what to do with APHIS, and certainly with some of
the action that the House has taken. I am pleased to see that the
10
administration has agreed to the House proposal that will do just

that, I believe, with APHIS, keeping the important day-to-day agri-
cultural functions within the USDA and moving also very impor-
tant border security functions to your new Department of Home-
land Security. We hope that this will prove to be a success not only
with APHIS here but hopefully with other areas like U.S. Customs
and others.
This is a very prudent plan and think it will very much help to
ensure that all of the peoples business is carried out. I hope that
we will use some of this as really a plan or a template as we work
through how homeland security can really do its job in terms of,
as Senator Miller mentioned, protecting the citizens of this great
country in a security sense, but also recognizing the day-to-day op-
erations that secure our economy through the industries of this
country and making sure that we keep those day-to-day operations
continuing.
Just a couple of quick questions. Is my time up?
The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to limit it to 3 minutes. We have
about 10 minutes left in this vote on the floor, and I would like to
get everybody in, if I could, if you could just
Senator LINCOLN. OK. Well, can I just add these last two things?
One is specifically how the administration does plan to allocate per-
sonnel between these two departments. As you formulate those
ideasI dont know if you have yet or not in terms of how you are
doing that. Moving required personnel currently that are working
in the normal agricultural operations of APHIS to be taken out of
those jobs and sent to a new department. I just hope that we will
take particular consideration in the decisions that you make there.
Several of my colleagues have already brought this up. Will there
be new personnel needed to fill the void that is left behind? Are we
going to require personnel to be detailed back and forth between
the departments as needed? All of those are very difficult situa-
tions, and we are already experiencing some of that concern of lack
of personnel at USDA to begin with.
I hope that as you approach that issue, you will recognize the
concerns that we already have at USDA and certainly recognize
how we can best get the functions of both the day-to-day operations
and that of homeland security.
The other is just to mention to you in our state of Arkansas,
Jailnet is a program I have started with the law enforcement offi-
cers, and we have been able to incorporate into that a plan called
E-Plan, which provides our first responders with an ability to real-
ly react to bio-terrorism and some other things. It is a very low-
cost way to get to your first responders and your law enforcement
officers in dealing with things that very often can be foreign to
them where they may not have a great deal of background. We
have five States now connected together, and it is a really good pro-
posal. We would be glad to visit with you and pass some of that
along to you.
Mr. RIDGE. We would be very interested in learning more about
that. We are finding great leadership and innovation at the State
and local level, particularly as it relates to first responders. I will
have someone followup with you.
11
Senator LINCOLN. We have all of our law enforcement officers

connected in our State with five other States, and we have the first
responders as well.
Mr. RIDGE. It sounds to me like a good mutual aid agreement.
Senator LINCOLN. There you go.
Mr. RIDGE. It sounds excellent.
Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. There are about 9 minutes left on the vote, so,
Senator Crapo, then Senator Dayton, and we can let Governor
Ridge leave.
Senator Crapo.
Senator CRAPO. Governor Ridge, I would like to join all the oth-
ers here in thanking you for your excellent work and indicate to
you that I also support the Presidents proposal for this new de-
partment.
I also would like to associate myself with the comments of Sen-
ator Roberts and others about the House proposal and the ap-
proach to which appropriate functions from APHIS should be shift-
ed to the new department, and with Senator Miller and others who
have commented about the importance of the land grant univer-
sities, and I look forward to working with you in that context.
I just have one very quick question, and that is, in the area of
trade, the sanitary and phytosanitary inspections and issues, I un-
derstand under the House proposal at least, would not be trans-
ferred to DHS. Is that your understanding? Would you support
that? I guess I would really just like your general answer as to how
your department, if established, would function with regard to the
trade issues and the phytosanitary and sanitary issues that we
deal with with our international trading partners.
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, it is my understanding that the specialized
border inspection team will be focusing on security rather than food
safety measures, and the FSIS and others would be dealing with
that issue. I dont think it is transferred, but I need to give you
more clarity and will make sure that I do by the end of the day.
Senator CRAPO. All right. I appreciate that. That that is the way
it is, but I just wanted to clarify that myself.
Mr. RIDGE. All right.
Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo.
Senator Dayton.
Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I join with the others in thanking you for your excel-
lent service, and I certainly also want to work and be supportive
with you. I serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee, so I
have had a chance to work with Senator Lieberman who has cer-
tainly worked closely with you, and I want to start by acknowledg-
ing that you made here one of the more cogent and insightful ob-
servations that I have witnessed in my now year and a half in the
Senate. That is where you say on page 3 here that you have exam-
ined the Federal Government and you quickly concluded the Fed-
eral Government could be much better organized than it presently
is. That is spoken as a Governor, looking at that situation, and you
need obviously in this exercise the wisdom of Solomon in terms of
what to leave and what to take and the like.
12
However, Solomon didnt split the baby, and I guess I almost as

a devils advocate could kind of questionand on behalf of most of
those involved in Minnesota, appreciate the change in the position
that you have now taken and the administration regarding leaving
much of this in the Department of Agriculture.
Given that you have the CIA, the FBI, some of these other enti-
ties with whom you need close working relationships are being left
also out of the department and left intact outside, is there consider-
ation given to leaving all of this in the Department of Agriculture
and establishing the working relationships you need with that De-
partment and this entity? What is the advantage of splitting it and
doing it that way?
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, as you have pointed out, we would like to
have the wisdom of Solomon, but none of us do. The refinement of
our proposal was in recognition of both management and mission
concerns that we had after consultation, frankly, with Republicans
and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. If the primary
mission is security and one of the means that you enhance security
for this country is you consolidate different functions at the border,
you have a significant portion of APHIS, about 3,000 FTEs out of
8,000, that has an ongoing relationship with INS and Customs and
very much a part of our border security apparatus. That seemed to
be a very good means by which we could separate a group of these
employees who fit very directly into the primary mission of the
agency. The othersthe balance of APHIS and those good people
down the road, there may be some connection, but the tear line
seemed to be the appropriate one to take. These men and women
will be focused on security issues, as they have been, and should
be part of a border consolidation effort.
Senator DAYTON. I appreciate the great deal of time and care you
have taken, and the resolution is the optimal one and am glad to
support it. That is your decision to make.
Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator.
Governor Ridge, if I could just close up by just saying I wonder
if we have a gaping hole here.
Mr. RIDGE. I hope not.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hope not, either, but lets think about
this. I will just take a couple of minutes here, and if you cant re-
spond, maybe we will just do it in writing. When things come
across our border in APHIS, APHIS is charged with the respon-
sibility of making sure that what comes across our border in terms
of animals and plants is not a threat to our animals and our
plants. It doesnt take into account if it is a threat to human health
safety. That is done by FSIS, Food Safety and Inspection Service,
and the FDA. APHIS looks at the countries where it is coming from
and if there is any possibility that it could infect our plants or our
animals, foot-and-mouth disease, that type of thing.
It seems to me if a terrorist wants to really terrorize our people,
they might want to do something to affect food safety in terms of
meat, meat products, vegetables, other things that may be coming
across our border. That is what FSIS and FDA do.
13
I dont see any proposal that the White House has, it doesnt
mention food safety as a part of this. I am wondering whether this
fits in because it seems like what you are going to doat least I
assume that Homeland Security would, if there is any indication of
a threat, they would coordinate or call upon FDA and FSIS without
putting them under Homeland Security. On APHIS, you put them
under Homeland Security, and that is only covering one threat, the
threat to plants and animals, not to humans. I am wondering if we
might not want to think about how we put that there also; in other
words, the protection of human health.
What if someone came across the border, a terrorist, and they
were able to contaminate something that made people sick and
they were traced? I mean, that could terrorize a lot of people in our
country, but that is not here under this proposal.
Mr. RIDGE. Well, conceivably, Senator, that, as I said before,
there is a tremendous amount of synergymaybe it is a word we
use too often, but here it is appropriatebetween the science and
the detection of food security problems and food safety. Obviously,
the FSIS and the FDA and others have much broader regulatory
authority, and they are looking for natural contaminations rather
than willful contaminations of animal and plant life. At the border
it is very appropriate that we take that portion of APHIS to focus
on food security.
In the event that those who work in the various departments and
agencies that deal with food safety issues suspect a terrorist act,
clearly the resources and the collaboration with the new Depart-
ment of Homeland Security would hopefully be a reflexive action.
The first sign, the first indication, the first possibility that it is a
terrorist act, engaging the Department of Homeland Security, call-
ing in the FBI, bringing all the resources to bear to identify or to
confirm whether it is or is not, and then trace back the etiology to
determine where it may have begun and to take a look nationwide
to see if there are other signs. Clearly, there will be the kind of col-
laboration and coordination on an ongoing basis between the food
safety agencies and the Secretary of Agriculture and the new De-
partment of Homeland Security.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have to work on this. Someone once
said to me, you are putting APHIS over there, that is fine. You are
going to protect our animals and our plants. What about humans
and the food that comes across our border? I thought, well, you are
right. What about that?
This needs to be further developed somehow and how you coordi-
nate with FDA and FSIS on that. I dont have the answer. I am
just throwing out the problem. That is all.
Mr. RIDGE. Senator, that we recognize we are both interested in
resolving it. The existing structure, the way the department is or-
ganized does solve the problem.
The CHAIRMAN. OK.
Mr. RIDGE. Obviously, as we chatted before the hearing, this de-
serves further conversation, and I look forward to that in the next
few days, because I know you are working on a very limited time
schedule, and I will look forward to that conversation.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor Ridge, and
thank you for being here.
14
Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Governor Ridge can be found in the
appendix on page 31.]
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess. We will go
over and vote and come back, and then we will have Secretary
Veneman on.
[Recess.]
The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry will resume its sitting. The committee had just heard
from the Director of our Homeland Security, Governor Ridge, and
we took a break to go vote. We are back now to get the input from
our Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Ann Veneman. Again,
this committee, Madam Secretary, is trying to wrestle with just ex-
actly how we form and shape, in the best and most efficient mana-
gerial regime, the jurisdiction for Homeland Security and not only
how they operate in the jurisdiction for USDA under APHIS but
also under FSIS and what is the best model for that.
As I said to Governor Ridge, as chairman, as an individual, I
dont have any set beliefs or parameters, just what works best for
homeland security. That is what we are interested in trying to fig-
ure out, and we certainly welcome your input and expertise on how
we can best shape it so that we get the job done without getting
into turf battles. I am not concerned about turf battles. I just want
to know what works.
We welcome you, Madam Secretary, and your statement will be
made part of the record in its entirety, and please proceed as you
so desire.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary VENEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be before this committee again and to have the opportunity to
talk about this very important subject. I appreciate the opportunity
that you have given me to follow Governor Ridge today. That this
is certainly a very important topic and one which we have worked
very closely with Governor Ridge and the Department of Homeland
Security all the way along since he has been appointed. What we
are discussing today indicates that that relationship has been a
very good working relationship. He certainly has a very good un-
derstanding of the importance of our food and agriculture system
to the whole issue of homeland security.
That as we look to how it iswhat is appropriate as we move
forward, as you know, the initial proposal would have transferred
all of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the new
Department of Homeland Security as well as Plum Island, through
work with the House Ag Committee and with the Office of Home-
land Security, we have created, as Governor Ridge referred to it,
a tear line and we believe that the structure that has been agreed
to within the House Ag Committees proposal and I believe will be
adopted, based on testimony that I was involved with yesterday, by
the House oversight committee is the appropriate means by which
to include the important role of agriculture inspection in the new
Department of Homeland Security.
15
We think that as you look at the various roles of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service there are a number of areas that
then, under the House proposal, the Department will retain juris-
diction over. As you know, APHIS has a very broad responsibility,
everything from biotechnology regulation to animal welfare to
international issues including imports and exports, and all of the
regulatory functions of APHIS will remain, under the House pro-
posal, with the Department of Agriculture. We do endorse that pro-
posal. We appreciate the collaboration we have had, and we look
forward to working with you, as Senator Roberts has now indi-
cated, he and others of this committee will introduce a parallel pro-
posal in the Senate.
I might add that we have been working very continuously on
these issues for a number of months. As you know, just after I took
office, we encountered the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, and we
started to review all of our systems. We added money, we added
inspectors, and we really began to look at our overall infrastructure
in this regard.
After September 11th, we began a whole other set of reviews that
included a look at how do we know consider this real threat of an
intentional act that might impact our food or agriculture. Again, we
have usedour 2003 budget has allocated additional funds to beef
up our programs. We got additional resources through the supple-
mental on homeland security. We are looking at the security of ev-
erything from our laboratories to our facilities to our research that
needs to be done, to new diagnostic tests, and we continue to be
very actively engaged in issues that impact on homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of this committee in this
topic. It is something that we take very seriously, and I would be
happy to answer your questions and the questions of those on the
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Again, we will go 3-minute time limits here on this.
At a staff briefing with your staff and those from the Office of
Homeland Security, we were told that there was no intention to in-
crease FTEs. With 3,200 people being transferred, or at least being
told to transfer3,200 employees from APHIS would be trans-
ferred over. Will you be able to carry out your agencys mission
without APHIS in its entirety, or approximatelylets say that is
about one-third of the people going over to Homeland Security. Or
will you need increased numbers of employees?
It seems to me that, we have a lot of other things to do in APHIS
that is not concerned with homeland security, and if one-third of
those people are transferring, are you satisfied that you will be
able to meet your obligations with the remaining work force?
Secretary VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, the way that this proposal
that is now in the House has been structured is that the employees
that would be transferred are those employees that are currently
doing the border inspection work, which amounts to about 3,200,
plus or minus.
Now, some of those employees are also used in the case of an out-
break, and we will take some of those inspectors and put them on
an emergency situation in the case of an outbreak of, say, citrus
canker or med fly, something like that.
16
The way we have envisioned this in working with the Office of

Homeland Security and the way the new department would work
is that we would have a cooperative agreement with the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture that we could utilize still people from the
border inspection part that would be transferred over for cases of
emergency. We believe with that arrangement it should not impact
current operations of APHIS other than those at the border, and
that the border capabilities would then also be carried out as they
are now, just through a different agency.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS. Yes, I have three questions. Thank you,
Madam Secretary. Thank you for your leadership in this whole
area. I hope you can do more with the same or less. I have every
confidence you will do your best.
You have already answered this question. I just want to ask it
for the record. Do you believe the split of APHIS functions between
the USDA and Homeland Security, as outlined in the House Agri-
culture Committee proposal and in the Miller-Allard-Roberts bill
and others to come, is the proper division of functions?
Secretary VENEMAN. Yes.
Senator ROBERTS. Thank you.
Assume under a worst-case scenarioand you testified about a
real threat scenario and looking ahead, and when you first as-
sumed office, we had a good talk about this in regards to homeland
security, agroterrorism, and the threat to our food supply. I truly
appreciate that conversation and the many conversations we have
had since that time. If we determined we had an intentional or un-
intentional outbreak of disease in multiple counties and locations
all throughout the country, are we really prepared to handle this?
Or do you think it would be useful to establish an organization
within the USDA or to expand APHIS to create the equivalent of
something like a CDC for agriculture?
I know that has budget implications, policy implications. Now is
not the best time to ask you that question. Down the road it seems
to me that something like that certainly would be needed.
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, Senator, that your question is a very
good one, and it is obviously an issue we have spent a considerable
amount of time looking at, and looking at our response mecha-
nisms. It is very important that, as we looked at the whole foot-
and-mouth disease situation we saw last year, as we then looked
at much broader scenarios with the post-9/11, we have worked to
not only strengthen our prevention but look at what would happen
in the event of an outbreak.
We have brought in our States. We have brought in universities.
We have worked with other departments. We have had interagency
meetings with FEMA and all of the other agencies that might be
involved if we were to get an outbreak. We have been involved in
exercises. While you can always do more in terms of preparedness,
I believe that the Department has taken considerable steps in try-
ing to be continuously better at what they are doing and in their
preparedness.
In terms of setting up additional offices, we have been strength-
ening our emergency response systems. We have integrated in
17
something in our Forest Service, for example, the emergency teams

that go out to forest fires. You know, they were used in New York
City on 9/11, but we have also discovered they can be used for
logistical support in the event of an outbreak. We recently did that
in a case of avian influenza in Virginia, where we brought in the
Forest Service logistical support.
We think by thinking outside the box a little bit that we are im-
proving our response systems and that we will continue to do so,
and we have been working with the Office of Homeland Security,
and we look forward to continuing that relationship with the new
Department of Homeland Security.
Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Could I
be permitted 30 seconds for a real quick question?
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS. Along those lines, have you contracted with
any outside parties or organizations to pursue a missionary analy-
sis or something that I call a war game scenario to determine or
identify any vulnerabilities in disease management functions,
maybe locatedand I am talking about consequence management
or what Director Ridge called crisis management? Are you that far
along the line in terms of those steps that you are considering?
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, we are working with a number of or-
ganizations on different kinds of issues. We have had an outside
firm looking at laboratory security issues. We have worked with
some universities on some scenario planning types of issues. We
will be glad to work with you and brief you on all of the kinds of
outside activities that
Senator ROBERTS. I was thinking of the Dark Winter exercise
which became not only famous but infamous, not that I am encour-
aging you to do that, but something of that nature. I appreciate
your response.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Allard.
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Those agencies that dont get transferred, that stay within the
Department, what are you doing to assure that they coordinate
their efforts on agroterrorism with the new Department of Home-
land Security?
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, as I indicated, we will have some
memorandums of understanding with the department, but it is
very important to recognize that we have worked very closely with
the Office of Homeland Security since the President initiated it in
October, a very close working relationship. We have coordinated
our activities. They have become very cognizant of the issues that
impact the food and agriculture system. Certainly the fact that
they are putting put of the agriculture inspection service into the
new department is a recognition of how important these issues are.
This is an administration that works very closely together on a
whole host of issues, and when it comes to food issues and home-
land security, we have worked closely not only with that office but
also with HHS and particularly Food and Drug Administration. I
would anticipate that those relationships would continue to
strength, if anything, and that we would continue to work very
18
closely in an interagency coordinated way to continue to make sure

that everything is coordinated completely.
When you look at the response systems that FEMA has, for ex-
ample, when we have a disaster today, we have a very coordinate
Government system. The new Department of Homeland Security
will make those systems even stronger because it will bring re-
sources together. That doesnt undermine the fact that you are
going to need very, very strong working relationships with all the
departments and the regulatory agencies in particular.
Senator ALLARD. If we had an outbreak of, say, foot-and-mouth
disease on our border with Mexico it would bring up all sorts of
international issues and whatnot. Who negotiates that? Is that the
Department of State or is that all the agencies sitting down? Who
negotiates with what agency in Mexico? Is that Agriculture or will
they have a comparable law enforcement division over there? Have
we given that some thought?
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, it would be an interagency coordina-
tion, but Agriculture would have a key role. We work very, very
closely with the Department of Agriculture in Mexico on regulatory
issues, on animal health issues.
As you know, I was involved in the Agriculture Department in
the State of California, and we had agreements of all the border
States on animal disease issues because of this very issue. You
have an animal disease or you have a med fly outbreak. Animal
diseases dont know that there is a border there, and so we have
a number of cooperative agreements, both at the Federal level, pri-
marily through APHIS, and also at the State level through our
State veterinarians, on how these kinds of things are controlled
and what we would do in the event of an outbreak. I would think
that those relationships would just continue on and be strength-
ened.
Senator ALLARD. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Dayton.
Madam Secretary, I commend you and Governor Ridge for hav-
ing worked out this division, which seems like a good one, and I
would be happy to support it, as well as others, and thank you for
that.
In Minnesota, as in many other States, homeland security is very
much a part of the state of our agricultural economy, so I hope you
will permit me that little extension as a way of asking you just a
couple of questions. One, we talked before the hearing began here
about the situation with Russia, and I have several turkey growers
from Minnesota actually waiting in my office right now watching
this hearing on television. I will be meeting with them. Can you
give us any indication or update of what you and Ambassador
Zoellick and others think is the future there?
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, we have worked very diligently in our
administration to try to resolve this issue with the difficulties we
have had with Russia and our poultry exports. As you know, our
largest export to Russia of anything, outside of food and agriculture
as well, is poultry. This has been something that has been of ex-
19
treme interest to the entire administration, and there has been a

high level of engagement.
We have had a number of teams go to Russia. We have had Rus-
sian teams come here. We most recently had a team in Russia that
included our Under Secretary J.B. Penn. We feel that we have
made considerable progress during that visit. There have been let-
ters that are being exchanged even as we speak today. We remain
hopeful that we can reach a quick resolution to this issue and get
the agreed protocols negotiated so that trade can resume, hopefully
in a manner that brings it up to near the levels that we had before.
Again, we had not anticipated that it would take so long to re-
solve this issue. We are continuing to work very diligently to get
it done.
Senator DAYTON. Well, thank you, and thank you for your efforts
there.
As we also discussed beforeso I am not, hopefully, surprising
youthe Senate bill which Senator Harkin so masterfully put to-
gether has as one of its key components disaster assistance money,
and the House did not and, unfortunately, would not accede. I have
a number of farmersothers do as well in the States, this strange
anomaly where in some States they are burning up, and others like
Minnesota are under water, farmers who have lost 90 to 100 per-
cent of their crops, and without the countercyclical payments and
without the disaster assistance that the House took out. I am told
indirectly that there is thought that there is money in the Farm
bill that was just passed that would be available for disaster assist-
ance, which, of course, the Senate had made arrangements for, but
I dont see anyis there any hope for the farmers who have lost
their crops in terms of disaster assistance, either through existing
funds that I am not aware of or throughwould the administration
be willing to support additional disaster assistance for those who
dont have a crop?
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, Senator, we are very aware that there
have been some extreme weather conditions that have impacted
not only our farmers and ranchers, but this has been the most ex-
treme fire season we have seen in almost history. The extreme
weather conditions have been a big issue in our Department, obvi-
ously.
We have taken every tool that we have in our tool box and tried
to make it available to people who have suffered this year because
of weather, whether it is opening up CRP to haying and grazing.
We have declared disasters as quickly as possible in counties where
it has been requested because that then makes the emergency
loans available to the farmers and ranchers. We have even opened
up haying and grazing on non-disaster counties so that they can
help out with the people that are suffering in the disaster counties.
We have been doing everything we can to try to alleviate the disas-
trous situation.
Senator DAYTON. Well, I believe you have and I thank you for
that, and you have extended the resources as far as possible. I
guess I would just ask if you would implore the President on behalf
of the farmers in Minnesota, who really are suffering, and consider
the disaster aid, without which many of them wont be around next
year.
20

Thank you, Madam Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary, thank you. I just have one fol-
low-up question. The USDA and the White House indicate that at
any one time, APHIS will have to borrow about 15 to 20 percent
of the 3,200 former employees to meet domestic agricultural health
responsibilities.
All of those 3,200 are not just used in the case of an outbreak.
If we need 15 to 20 percent of those to do non-border activities,
such as invasive species work, enforcing domestic quarantines, or
monitoring and surveillance, I guess what I am wondering then
again is do we leave a gap at the border if you at any one time
have 15 to 20 percent of these plant and quarantine officers just
to meet APHIS day-to-day responsibilities.
That is why I was asking so many questions about the FTEs, be-
cause we have indications that at any time you would need 15 to
20 percent for day-to-day activities, but then how much do they
need for border activities? Maybe we dont really need to transfer
3,200.
Secretary VENEMAN. Well, let me see if I can explain that as well
as I understand it. We utilize up to 15 to 20 percent of the inspec-
tors during certain times when we have outbreaks. We have a lot
of people assigned in Florida, for example, because it is a big State
both in terms of airports and, as well, shipping ports. We have also
had citrus canker and we have had control because of that disease
and we have needed additional APHIS people, so they have been
rotated in for control of that disease.
Under the proposal, as it now has been passed by the House Ag
Committee, that would anticipate that we would have contract au-
thority and a memorandum of understanding so that we could still
utilize those resources.
We have overall increased inspectors over the last year-and-a-
half since we have been in office, primarily because of the foot-and-
mouth disease and then 9/11, and through the emergency funds
and additional funding that we have put in. We believe that with
the flexibility of this memorandum of understanding that we can
maintain the level of inspection, as well as the level of containment
and control and eradication that we need.
I might also add that I believe that as you put all of these people
under the same department, we will be doing more cross-training.
For example, I would anticipate that Customs inspectors will be
better prepared to look and ask the right questions about food and
agriculture, so that we will gain resources, in my view, because of
the agencies with whom the APHIS inspectors will be housed.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Did you have any followup at all, Senator Allard?
Senator ALLARD. No, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, thank you very much for taking time from
your busy schedule to come up here.
Secretary VENEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
The CHAIRMAN. We will work with you, and also Governor Ridge,
to get this thing figured out.
Secretary VENEMAN. Thank you.
21
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Veneman can be found in
the appendix on page 37.]
The CHAIRMAN. Now, we will call Dr. Alfonso Torres, Associate
Dean of Veterinary Public Policy and Director of the New York
State Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory at Cornell University.
Dr. Torres was the former APHIS Deputy Administrator for Veteri-
nary Services.
Dr. Torres, we welcome you to the committee and your statement
will be made part of the record in its entirety. If you would just
summarize for us, we would be most appreciative.
STATEMENT OF ALFONSO TORRES, ASSOCIATE DEAN, VETERI-

NARY PUBLIC POLICY, AND DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE
ANIMAL HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, COLLEGE OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA,
NEW YORK
Dr. TORRES. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, members of the com-
mittee. Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to come here.
As you requested, I am going to shorten by formal remarks be-
fore I can answer some questions. I must indicate to you, Mr.
Chairman, that when I prepared these written remarks I was not
aware of the amendment to the House bill that has made signifi-
cant changes to the original proposal of the President. If I may, let
me go right to the five points or recommendations that I indicated
in my remarks and make reference to those as the current proposal
stands.
Let me say also, Mr. Chairman, that I am making these com-
ments based on my extensive experience at the USDA, 8 years at
Plum Island in charge of foreign animal disease diagnostic, and
then director of the center, and then the last 3 years here in Wash-
ington, DC, working with Secretary Veneman and previous Sec-
retary Glickman on animal health issues for the United States.
My first recommendation or point was exactly what the House
bill has done in modifying that only the port inspectors will be
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. However, I
do have similar concerns to the ones that you have expressed in the
sense that PPQ, plant protection and quarantine, depends on many
of those port inspectors for plant health activities.
This is a little bit different than what we have on the animal
health side, in which we have permanent personnel located in all
50 States that deal on a day-to-day basis with issues of animal
health, whether we have an emergency or not. That is not exactly
the same situation as PPQ is organized in APHIS. They depend
quite a bit on those port inspectors when they have plant disease
outbreaks.
If those port inspectors will go to the Department of Homeland
Security, I will suggest that either USDA will retain some funding
or personnel to fill the gap that you identified in your remarks.
My second remark or recommendation is that there are some im-
port/export permitting activities for restricted agents, now called
selected agents, that need to be coordinated between APHIS and
Customs. That has been taken care of by the development of a new
22
selected agent list, and that the two agencies are well coordinated
there.
A third point I would like to raise and a point that I have not
heard up to this point in time is that APHIS from time to time dur-
ing the past few years, certainly while I was there, was suggesting
that there is a need to have emergency management specialist vet-
erinarians located at FEMA. FEMA is taking more of a role of deal-
ing with national disasters or disease outbreaks where animals are
involved and they need to have this veterinary expertise within the
FEMA organization.
Whether FEMA stays or not within the Department of Homeland
Security, I will suggest that the proposals that were put forward
by APHIS in the past of having veterinarians in the headquarters
of FEMA and one specialist in emergency management animal
health issues at each one of the eight FEMA regions should be
given consideration.
My fourth point is in relation to the animal and plant health lab-
oratories and science centers. The question came recently from
Senator Roberts about whether or not APHIS should have a CDC-
like organization, and my answer to that is that we do indeed have
that organization in place.
APHIS has the National Veterinary Services Laboratories at
Ames, Iowa, with one of their labs is located at Plum Island. They
have the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health in Fort Col-
lins, Colorado, and the Center for Veterinary Biologics in Ames,
Iowa.
All these are, in essence, very, very similar in activities and orga-
nization as to what CDC has for human health, and I will suggest
that the same treatment that CDC has had should be applied to
these centers. Except for Plum Island, that the new amendment in
the House bill takes care of that.
My final points are in relation to Plum Island, a place where I
spent 8 years with USDA in top managerial leadership positions.
As most people know, Plum Island was created back in the 1950s
with the main purpose of working with the foot-and-mouth disease
virus because at the time the bio-containment technologies that ex-
isted required around the world that these centers would be located
in an island setting. That is no longer the case today. Actually,
most centers around the world working with foot-and-mouth dis-
ease are located on the mainland.
Because Plum Island was then created with these bio-contain-
ment characteristics, then all the highly contagious diseases were
moved to work at Plum Island. It is important, Mr. Chairman, to
point out and to remember that not all foreign animal diseases are
diagnosed or worked at Plum Island. Many of these diseasesall
poultry diseases, all equine diseases, and many diseases that affect
other species, including mad cow disease, chronic wasting disease,
and scrapieare diagnosed at Ames, Iowa. The notion that Plum
Island is the only center in the United States where foreign or
highly contagious diseases are worked is not correct.
We have other activities at Plum Island. We also have research
activities in some of the diseases that, because of the requirements
of the law, need to be done at Plum Island, mainly foot-and-mouth
disease and other highly contagious diseases.
23
All the APHIS labs, at Ames, Iowa, and at Plum Island, also deal
with zoonotic diseases, and in those cases there is a great deal of
coordination with CDC, and I include in here working with rabies,
working with the west Nile virus, and working with encephalitic
conditions that affect horses and humans as well.
While I understand to a certain degree the idea of having better
coordination by moving a major Federal lab into Homeland Secu-
rity, I will put forward the question of why is Plum Island singled
out when it is not the only place in the United States where foreign
animal diseases are studied?
Second, given the similar nature of APHIS labs to CDC labs or
NIH labs, why are those labs not transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security? All scientific labs providing diagnostic sci-
entific support for diagnosis of human or animal diseases should be
treated the same.
In the case of CDC and NIH, it is my understanding that they
will remain under HHS and Homeland Security will provide addi-
tional moneys or programs to enhance their needs in case of bio-
terrorism or other terrorism, for that matter. I will suggest that
perhaps it will be good to think in those terms for all those sci-
entific centers of APHIS.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come here
to speak to you and I will be glad to answer any specific questions
that you may have.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Dr. Torres, thank you very much because
you bring some valuable experience as former Deputy Adminis-
trator and also Director of the Plum Island facility.
Let me see if I understand correctly the summation of your testi-
mony. What you are basically saying is since the only facility being
transferred is Plum Islandthat is the one that they want to
transfer, but they will be coordinating with all these other facilities
for human health and safety and plant and animal safety.
Are you saying that they could have the same type of arrange-
ment with Plum Island? In other words, they could be used to fight
bio-terrorism, but not necessarily transferred. Is that what you are
saying in terms of Plum Island?
Dr. TORRES. Yes, Senator Harkin. What I am saying is Plum Is-
land provides scientific basis, diagnostic technologies, and research
on some of the foreign animal diseases that could be used for a bio-
terrorism event. The same thing happened with the other labora-
tories in Ames, Iowa.
The CHAIRMAN. Right.
Dr. TORRES. Plum Island is not exclusive for having these tech-
nologies. Those technologies exist in other APHIS laboratories in
the country. What I am suggesting is that the same situation hap-
pens with the CDC labs in regard to human diseases.
CDC provides the scientific basis, diagnosis, and surveillance for
human diseases that could be used for bio-terrorism, and the Presi-
dents proposal did not call for moving CDC labs from Atlanta or
Fort Collins into Homeland Security, but provides some ways to en-
hance their capabilities through funding and cooperative programs.
I am suggesting that Plum Island could and perhaps should be
treated in the same way; that is, leaving it under the jurisdiction
of USDA, but providing additional moneys and programs to en-
24
hance the needs of the new department in regard to agents of

agroterrorism.
The CHAIRMAN. I say to my friend, Senator Allard, this is the one
thing that bothers me, or I am just concerned about anyway, and
that is that with the other elements of human safety, CDC remains
basically as it is, but will work in a collaborative function with the
Department of Homeland Security; NIH labs the same thing.
On Plum Island, they want to move it over there, but still there
are a lot of things that go on at Plum Island that deal with safety
and health things that arent necessarily terrorist activities that we
need there. I am just wondering why couldnt there be the same
arrangement with Plum Island as they have with CDC labs. This
is where I am a little hesitant.
Again, you know about this kind of stuff. Maybe this was the
first reaction was to say that they should move it over there, but
I am not certain it should be. I am not expert enough to know, but
I rely upon people like you and Senator Allard and others who
know this better than I do.
That is the essence of what you were saying?
Dr. TORRES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any thoughts on that, Senator Al-
lard?
Senator ALLARD. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are foreign disease
studies done in the United States, but I dont believe they are keep-
ing live animals, for example, for study except on Plum Island.
Chronic wasting disease, he suggested, doesnt occur in the
United States. If you will pardon this getting a little technical, we
have spongiform encephalopathies. These kinds of lesions are
caused by a group of diseaseschronic wasting disease, scrapie.
Mad cow disease doesnt occur in the United States. We have
chronic wasting disease, which is a wildlife disease, and scrapie
these diseases have similar lesions, but mad cow disease itself,
does not occur in the United States. There would not be any re-
search done on that disease, nor any of the other foreign diseases,
because the United States wants to claim that we are free of these
foreign diseases.
As you observed with foot-and-mouth disease, for example, if we
let this in on the mainland, we could no longer make that claim.
You saw what happened to trade with England. It shuts off. We
dont want that to happen to our cattle producers here in this coun-
try. That is why we have Plum Island set over here, not on the
mainland; so that we can make those claims and why we make
those studies there.
That doesnt happen with the human diseases so much. They are
classified a little higher, too, on security perhaps. You dont have
the industry impact and the claim of whether you have the disease
on the mainland making an impact on whether you can export or
import. That is the basic difference between the two.
There are zoonotic diseases that both the CDC lab in Georgia
and the one in Fort Collins, study. The lab in Fort Collins deals
mainly with what we call vector diseases, diseases that are trans-
mitted through an insect. They specialize in that, and the rest of
the diseases are handled at the CDC lab in Atlanta, Georgia.
25
There is kind of a fundamental difference between the two labs

and how their research relates to trade. We want to make the
claim that we dont have these diseases in the United States, but
we also want to have a facility where we can do the research.
Those diseases that occur at the CDC lab dont necessarily affect
disease because there arent countries that make rules and regula-
tions on transporting animals. With on human diseases, it is prob-
ably not as apt to have an impact on trade issues.
The CHAIRMAN. My question is will most of the work in the fu-
ture at Plum Island be focused on terrorism threats and bioterror-
ist threats, or will most of the work there be done on what we have
been doing all along, and that is, if you will permit me, the com-
mon old garden-variety types of threats that we have had from in-
festation into this country from other countries?
If it is the latter, and only periodically would they be used to do
something in the anti-terrorism regime, it would seem to me that
the best thing would be to leave Plum Island under APHIS, but to
have a collaborative type of an agreement with the Department of
Homeland Security.
If, however, the majority of the work that is going to be done
there is of a nature that concerns itself with terrorist threats and
a minority of its work is in the ongoing types of research and sci-
entific work we do now, then I can see moving it to DHS and have
a collaborative arrangement with APHIS. That is what I am wres-
tling with.
Senator ALLARD. There is a greater likelihood that the diseases
that you see at Plum Island would be used in bio-terrorism because
of the impact they could have on the economy of this country.
Take foot-and-mouth, for example. It would really shut down the
agricultural economy in this country. I would suspect that it would
have some appeal to a bioterrorist if he wanted to severely disrupt
the agricultural economy in the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Torres, any thoughts on our little discussion
here?
Dr. TORRES. There are about 50 diseases that are foreign to the
United States that can affect livestock and poultry. Of those, not
all of them again are worked at Plum Island. As I mentioned, avian
diseases are diagnosed in Ames, Iowa. Avian influenza, for exam-
ple, could shut downand we have seen what happened with the
non-pathogenic avian influenza in Virginia, let alone what could
happen if we have the highly pathogenic form. All of that work is
done at Ames, Iowa. Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis, which
is a disease that is also zoonotic for humans, as you well know, is
done at Ames, Iowa.
My point is that not everything that could be used as a bioterror-
ist weapon is done at Plum Island. Certainly, the most highly con-
tagious are, but there are many others that also could shut our
trade down that are done at Ames, Iowa. That makes an illogical
separation of Plum Island away from other units of APHIS, and
ARS for that matter, that are working with agents that also could
be used for bio-terrorism.
The CHAIRMAN. To belabor this a little bit further, as I under-
stand it, what the House didand my staff just kind of corrected
26
me on thiswhat the House did is they transferred the facility of

Plum Island to Homeland Security.
Senator ALLARD. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. All the people there and the professional staff
would stay with USDA. Now, I am not certain if that makes much
sense. Maybe it does. I dont know.
Senator ALLARD. I am not sure that jives with the testimony we
got earlier from Secretary Veneman. We will have to check that
out.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am told here. My staff is all nod-
ding their heads. They are saying that that is in accordance with
the briefing they attended from the White House that they would
move the facility, but the USDA professional staff would stay with
USDA. I dont know. As I said, I am not an expert in this area,
so I dont know if that is a logical thing to do or not.
You and I have to talk about this.
Senator ALLARD. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You have to tell me what you think is the best
on this. I just dont know if that makes sense or not. I dont know.
One more time, Dr. Torres, how would you see it? They are mov-
ing the facility, but they leave the people.
Dr. TORRES. Senator, it is not clear to me the actual meaning of
the text of the amendment of H.R. 5005. It says that the Plum Is-
land Animal Disease Center, including assets and liabilities, will be
moved to the Department of Homeland Security. As I understand
it, in the definitions of this bill that means building, equipment,
the physical structures.
Then the second paragraph indicates that the Department of Ag-
riculture shall enter into an agreement to ensure that the Depart-
ment of Agriculture has access to the center for research, diag-
nostic, and other activities. There is language that indicates that
even though the facilities would be transferred, USDA will have to
access to the activities of research, diagnosis, and training. It is not
clear to me, at least, the meaning of that amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. This is something we are going to have to clear
up.
Senator ALLARD. Yes, we have to clear up the term professional
staff.
The CHAIRMAN. That is probably right.
Senator ALLARD. If you are running a diagnostic lab, it makes
sense to keep the veterinarians and the pathologists in the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. I just dont know what is included under the
definition of professional staff.
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to have to get our staffs together
and take a look at this. I am told it is because the employees are
either ARS or APHIS employees who dont work for the Plant Pro-
tection and Quarantine Service. That is what I am told, anyway,
so I do believe we are going to have to look at this.
I thank you again very much, Dr. Torres, for coming here and
presenting this testimony. I hope we can call on your expertise as
we work this through in the future.
Did you have another question?
Senator ALLARD. No, I dont, Mr. Chairman.
27
The CHAIRMAN. Again, I would conclude by saying that these are

things we are going to have to work out. As I said to Governor
Ridge, I dont have any preconceived notions on this or territorial
types of claims or anything like that; whatever works the best and
the smoothest.
I mean, obviously we have gone from transferring all of APHIS,
which would have involved the Department of Homeland Security
inspecting and caring for circus animals in this country, which ob-
viously they dont want to do, and they shouldntso we have gone
from that to a clearer delineation of what really Homeland Security
ought to have.
Perhaps we need to refine it a little bit further here and make
sure that we have, again, the best functional operation, whatever
works smoothest and managerially is the best setup. That is what
we are going to be wrestling with here.
Dr. Torres, thank you very much for being here.
Dr. TORRES. You are welcome.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Torres can be found in the ap-
pendix on page 40.]
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned to the call
of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
JULY 17, 2002
(29)
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
JULY 17, 2002
(49)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
JULY 17, 2002
(77)
78
79
80

Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - Homeland Security

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 107TH Congress - Homeland Security

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

JULY 17, 2002

Printed for the use of the

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director/Chief Counsel

Wednesday, July 17, 2002

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002

Senator ROBERTS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RIDGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

borrow maybe 15 to 20 percent of those 3,200 former employees to

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, it

We have requested congressional support of the management

Senator ALLARD. I am sorry. Maybe five or six, if we keep looking

similar would certainly be acceptable to this Senator. It is a com-

administration has agreed to the House proposal that will do just

Senator LINCOLN. We have all of our law enforcement officers

However, Solomon didnt split the baby, and I guess I almost as

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY, UNITED

The way we have envisioned this in working with the Office of

something in our Forest Service, for example, the emergency teams

closely in an interagency coordinated way to continue to make sure

treme interest to the entire administration, and there has been a

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

STATEMENT OF ALFONSO TORRES, ASSOCIATE DEAN, VETERI-

hance the needs of the new department in regard to agents of

There is kind of a fundamental difference between the two labs

me on thiswhat the House did is they transferred the facility of

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I would conclude by saying that these are

JULY 17, 2002

JULY 17, 2002

JULY 17, 2002

You might also like